The New York Times reported that "leading Democrats" argue "that allowing additional coastal exploration [for oil] would have no immediate impact on gas prices." But the article did not note that it is not only "leading Democrats" who have pointed out that access to currently off-limit areas would have no immediate impact on prices: The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
The New York Times' Carl Hulse reported that congressional Republicans "worry just what a President McCain would portend for them come January, given their divergent views on big-ticket items like immigration, climate change and campaign spending." But Hulse did not note that McCain has moved to the right on immigration to align himself more closely with his party's base, nor did he mention that McCain may be violating campaign finance laws by surpassing spending limits under the public financing system for the primary period.
The New York Times' Carl Hulse asserted that, while Democrats were "pleased" that President Bush was giving his final State of the Union speech, "they were not as elated about ... its emphasis on reducing the pet projects known as earmarks beloved by many in Congress." Yet Hulse left out a different reason for congressional criticism of Bush's earmark threat -- that, when the Republicans controlled Congress, Bush approved all of their earmark-laden appropriations bills. Nor did Hulse report that the Democrats approved fewer earmarks last year than the Republicans did in 2006 when they controlled Congress.